norml11 - Page 67

 Discussion
 The Act, at 21 U.S.C° §.81.2(b)(l)(C), requires tha, C marijuana be. retained
 in Schedule i if _[t]here is a']ack of accepted_safety for use of [it] under
 medical supervision." If there is no lack of such safety, if it is accepted
 that this: substance can be used w_th safety under:i_edi(:al supervision, .then it
 L
 _s unreasonable to keep it in Schedule [. - .
 Again we must ask - "accepted" by whom? In the MONA proceeding the Agency's
 first Final Rule decided that _accepted '_ here meant, as in the phrase "accepted
 medicaiuse is treatment '', that the FDA had accepted the substance pursuant to
 the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 5_ Fed. Reg. 36555 (1986).
 The Court of Appeals held that this was error. On remand, in its third Final
 Rule-on MONA, the Agency made the same ruling as before, relying essentially on
 the same findings, and on others of similar nature, just as it did with respect
 to "acceP.ted medical use." 53 Fed. Rego 5]56 (1988).
 The administrative law judge finds himself constrained not to follow the
 rationale in that NDMA third Final Order for the same reasons as set out above
 in Section V with respect to _accepted medical use" in ontology. See pages 30
 to 33. Bi-iefly, the Agency was looking primarily a't the results of scientific
 tests and studies rather than at what physicians had° in fact, accepted. The
 Agency was wrongly basing its decision on a judgement as to whether or not
 "doctors o_uoht to have accepted the substance in question as safe for use under
 medical supervision. The criteria the Agency applied in the NDMA third Final
 Rule are inapp_'opriate. The only proper question for the Agency here _s: Have a
 significant, minority of physicians acce.t_ marijuana as safe for use under
 medical supervision?
 - 65